Legal humor. Seriously.

Posts from March 2008

March 20, 2008

A 31-year-old Estonian thief who escaped from a Finnish prison on February 29 was "recaptured" a week later, but only after going to some trouble to arrange it. It's not entirely clear whether Martin Vaiksaar had decided he wanted to go back to jail, or was just disgusted with the state of law enforcement in his native country, to which he had fled.

Vaiksaar's escape was somewhat embarrassing to the Finns, since he broke out of a brand-new prison by tying bedsheets together, somehow scaling three successive 23-foot walls, and then walking twelve miles to a ferry terminal where he bought a ticket back to Estonia. (Reportedly, the prison's staff did not notice he was missing for a full day.) Then the Estonian authorities took over not catching him. Vaiksaar spent a week at his girlfriend's house before being recaptured, and even then it was only because he basically insisted that the police do their job.

On March 6, Estonian police said that they had apprehended Vaiksaar through "specific police work." (They would not be more specific.) But then a TV station aired previously taped footage that told the real story.

Recorded while Vaiksaar was still a fugitive, the footage showed Vaiksaar meeting with the TV crew at a restaurant, and wondering aloud why nobody had looked for him at his girlfriend's house. "If you look where prisoners go when they escape, most of them go home," he pointed out. Eventually, Vaiksaar asked the crew to drive him to a police station so he could tell them he "had found a lost wallet." He walked in and later walked right back out again, still unarrested. "I even told them my name," he told the crew, "but they showed no interest in me." Apparently disappointed by this, Vaiksaar was finally arrested later that day after he began stopping people on the street and complaining that nobody was interested in arresting him even though he was the area's "most-wanted" fugitive.

Those planning to become fugitives take note: Scandinavia seems to be the place for it. Based on this story, prison is largely optional there.

Reuters News reported last week that a court in Bitola, Macedonia, has convicted a bear of theft and property damage in a case brought by a beekeeper.

Rumors of violent protests against the ruling in Jellystone Park could not be immediately confirmed.

Beekeeper Zoran Kiseloski told reporters after the case concluded that he had tried to deter the bear from stealing his honey in the first place. "I tried to distract the bear with lights and music because I heard bears are afraid of that," said Kiseloski. The source of his bear-deterrence information was not disclosed, but it appears to have been successful.

This may or may not have been related to the fact that the music involved was "turbo-folk," a style that became popular in Serbia, along with war crimes, during the 1990s. The best-known turbo-folk artist, Ceca (a.k.a. Svetlana Ražnatović), was once married to notorious criminal and paramilitary leader Arkan, until he was assassinated in 2000. She remains extremely popular in Serbia.

Bears hate her, though.

Kiseloski's plan worked until his generator died. But then the bear, which seems to have loitered just out of turbo-folk range, returned and destroyed the beehives, stealing the honey and possibly nearby pic-a-nic baskets. What to do? Answer: prosecute the bear.

According to the report, the case lasted a year. It was not clear why this took so long -- they may have been trying to find the bear, which had absconded, or it is possible that there was an earlier conviction that was thrown out due to problems with the lineup used to identify the culprit.

What was the point of convicting the bear, anyway? The court seems to have reasoned that, ordinarily, convicting the bear would make its owner responsible for the damage. In this case, the bear was a free agent, but the court apparently extended this doctrine to the state by noting that the bear, an endangered species, was under state protection. Thus, the effect of the conviction was to force the state to pay the beekeeper's damages, approximately 140,000 denars (which may or may not be a lot).

I suggest that the state try to recover some of these denars by suing the purveyors of turbo-folk for environmental damage and/or bear harassment. Hey, if the beekeeper won, I don't see why this wouldn't work, too.

March 18, 2008

As you can tell (at least if you've seen a past version of this site), the design has changed mildly. I remain loyal to blue, but certain other long-serving design elements have been ruthlessly and suddenly dumped, something I now refer to as being "Spitzered." I do not expect this to affect the entertainment value, if any, of this site, but if you disagree or have a violent antipathy to blue or whatever font this is, feel free to let me know.

Also, please consider the following.

WARNING

A very small percentage of people may experience a seizure when exposed to certain colors and/or fonts, especially if said fonts are employed for the writing of posts that have little value other than wasting the reader's valuable and/or billable time. Even people who have no history of seizures or epilepsy may have an undiagnosed condition that can cause these seizures, or may be able to fake them in order to get some time off.

This condition may have a variety of symptoms, including: lightheadedness, heavy feet, altered vision, eye or face twitching, jerking or shaking of arms or legs, speaking in tongues, sudden weight gain, sudden weight loss, disorientation, confusion, doing the Charleston, or a momentary loss of awareness. Sufferers may suddenly decide to vote for the Green Party; nothing can be done for these people. Seizures may also cause loss of consciousness or convulsions that can lead to injury from falling down or striking nearby objects. To reduce these risks, move all nearby objects away from you a distance at least equal to your height, or lie down before reading.

If you experience any of the above symptoms, immediately stop reading and consult a doctor, if there is one nearby who can understand you given all the shaking and babbling and Green Party rhetoric that is likely going on. If you or any of your relatives have a history of seizures, epilepsy, Extreme Font Sensitivity Disorder, or getting worked up about things that really aren't that important, please consult a doctor before reading, and then, whatever the doctor says, do not read.

Tough times on Wall Street these days -- not only are securities traders getting smacked around by the market, they aren't even safe during their leisure-time lap dances.

A lawsuit filed on March 14 by trader Stephen Chang alleges that Chang was injured at the rather unimaginatively named "Hot Lap Dance Club" last November. (Isn't that sort of like calling your movie "Snakes on a Plane"? It's not really a name, just a description.)

According to the New York Post, the complaint states that Mr. Chang "paid for and was receiving a lap dance" when, "during the course of said lap dance, the employee suddenly swung around, striking the plaintiff in the eye with the heel of her shoe." Said strike allegedly caused Chang to "sustain serious injuries." The Post said neither Chang nor his attorney would return calls to discuss the extent of the ocular infringement.

The Daily News was able to reach a manager at the club, however, who said he was skeptical because Chang had not reported any injuries at the time. "We didn't have any reported accidents," said "Lou," who noted that standard Hot Lap Dance Club medical practices would have come into play had such an incident occurred. "We have a first-aid kit," he said -- well, that's good to know -- "and we would have treated the guy or called an ambulance" in case of injury.

Oh, just the ambulance for me, thanks. Yes, I know my eyeball is hanging out, and there's a lot of blood, but I'd just rather Lou and his "first-aid kit" stay over there. Nor am I confident this young woman is actually a nurse, but thanks for the offer. Actually, maybe I'll just go hail a cab and pop this back in myself on the way to my lawyer's office.

Because the extent of the injuries are not yet known, it is impossible to confirm or deny one blogger's speculation that the fist of the man's wife might be an possible alternative cause of the eye injury.

March 17, 2008

The Supreme Court granted certiorari today in the case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which presents the following question:

Is the Federal Communication Commission's determination that broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on broadcasting "any obscene, indecent, or profane language" arbitrary in failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the agency's shift in policy on the use of isolated expletives?

The Court will thus be considering, in addition to questions involving torture, the separation of powers, and so on, whether fines can be imposed for dropping the F-bomb on a TV show.

This case arises from Bono's use of the word ("this is really f***ing brilliant") while accepting a Golden Globe in 2003. According to a timeline put together by the First Amendment Center, the FCC received 234 complaints about Bono's F-bomb, but decided that "the utterance did not violate federal restriction . . . because the language in question did not describe or depict sexual or excretory activities or organs." It was just the F-word in isolation.

Later, however, supposedly at the urging of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, the FCC reversed its position. Apparently not wanting to establish a policy that isolated F-bombs (or the less-dreaded but still-indecent S-bombs) would be tolerated, the FCC stated that any use of even "fleeting expletives" would be considered "indecent" and subject to fines -- regardless of context, the number of bombs deployed, or the collateral damage inflicted, if any.

Though the FCC imposed no fines based on this policy for past incidents, it was sued by the four major TV networks in April 2006, who argued the policy was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 last year that the FCC policy on "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and capricious and was issued without a "reasoned analysis for departing from prior precedent." The FCC appealed, and the highest court in the land will now take up the issue.

I very much look forward to the Supreme Court's reasoned analysis, and Bono's reaction to it.